SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  TIMOTHY  JENKINS,  OF  N.  YORK 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  APRIL  14,  1852, 


AGAINST  GIVING  AWAY  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS. 


The  House  being:  in  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
(Mr.  Hibbard  in  the  chair,) 

Mr.  JENKINS  said:  Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall 
devote  the  hour  allotted  to  me  mainly  in  discuss¬ 
ing  these  questions:  Has  Congress  the  rightful 
power  to  make  donations  of  public  lands,  either 
for  the  construction  of  railroads,  or  to  actual  set¬ 
tlers  ?  Would  it  be  expedient  for  us  to  exercise 
that  power,  even  if  we  posses  it  ? 

The  Committee  of  this  House  upon  Public 
Lands  has  reported  a  bill  granting  to  the  State  of 
Missouri  a  portion  of  the  national  domain  for  the 
purpose  of  constructing  two  railroads  in  that 
State — one  from  St.  Joseph  to  Hannibal,  a  dis¬ 
tance  of  one  hundred  and  eighty  miles;  the  other 
from  St.  Louis  to  the  western  line  of  the  State,  a 
distance  of  two  hundred  and  thirty-two  miles. 
By  this  bill  it  is  proposed  to  give  the  State  of 
Missouri  between  one  and  two  millions  of  acres 
of  land.  I  said  to  the  State  of  Missouri;  not 
quite  so.  Corporations  have  been  created  by  that 
State,  authorized  to  construct  these  roads.  These 
corporations,  therefore,  stand  behind  the  State, 
eager  expectants  of  the  nation’s  bounty. 

If  this  were  the  only  project  for  such  donations 
to  be  pressed  upon  our  consideration,  we  possibly 
might  pass  over  the  subject  with  less  concern;  but 
this  bill  is  only  the  entering  wedge.  Other  bills 
are  to  follow,  which,  if  carried  through  Congress, 
will  sweep  away,  at  the  present  session,  from 
twenty-five  to  fifty  millions  of  acres  of  the  public 
domain. 

The  Committees  upon  Public  Lands  in  both 
Houses  of  Congress  are  pushing  forward  a  scheme 
of  internal  improvements  at  the  nation’s  expense, 
unrivaled  in  extravagance  by  any  former  legisla¬ 
tive  body.  Let  us  look  into  the  document  room, 
and  see  what  intelligence  the  Senate,  through  that 
channel,  has  communicated  to  us  upon  the  subject. 
We  find  sent  there  prior  to  the  first  of  last  March 
a  large  volume  of  bills  making  donations  of  public 
lands  to  certain  favored  States,  of  which  I  give  a 
brief  abstract: 


Donations  proposed  in  the  Senate  at  this  session ,  as  esti¬ 
mated  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office. 

FIRST— -FOR  RAILROADS. 

States.  Length  of  roads  Amount  of  dona- 

in  miles.  tion  in  acres. 

Michigan . 534 .  341.760 

Wisconsin . 156 .  599,040 

Iowa . 434 .  3,107,417 

Missouri . 232  890,880 

Arkansas . 488 .  1,873,920 

Alabama . 314 .  1,205,760 

Florida .  932 .  5,882,880 

3,090 

Making  for  railroads . . .  13,901 ,657 


These  3,090  miles  of  road  will  cost  $60,000,000. 

SECOND — DONATIONS  TO  STATES,  NOT  LIMITED  TO  RAIL¬ 
ROADS. 

Ohio .  302,105 

Louisiana .  13,508,259 

Illinois .  35,000 


Add  the  above  for  railroads 


13,845,454 
.  13,901 ,657 


Proposed  donations,  in  acres .  27,747,111 

Thus  an  effort  is  made  to  bring  the  united  votes 
of  ten  States  into  the  measure,  by  holding  out  a 
reward  of  the  value  of  $35,000,000. 

One  scheme  of  prodigality  never  stands  alone. 
Others  of  like  character  soon  cluster  around  the 
leading  project.  The  circle  of  combinations  is 
constantly  enlarging,  and  each  unauthorized  appli¬ 
cation  is  made  to  depend  on  the  success  of  all. 
The  system  in  fact  goes  further.  Meritorious 
subjects  for  legislative  action  are  quite  sure  of  de¬ 
feat,  unless  united  to  the  prescribed  circle.  The 
influence  of  the  whole  scheme  is  pernicious,  and 
tends  to  change  our  legislative  Hall  into  a  market¬ 
place,  where  vote  may  be  bartered  for  vote. 

The  power  of  the  General  Government  is  deriv¬ 
ative — conferred  on  the  one  hand,  and  limited  on 
the  other,  by  compact.  The  States  have  an  inde¬ 
pendent  existence,  and  are  clad  with  the  elements 
of  supreme  power.  It  is  the  business  of  States, 
and  not  of  the  General  Government,  to  support 


2 


the  poor;  to  disseminate  learning;  to  encourage 
the  arts,  promote  agriculture,  and  construct  roads 
and  canals.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Gov¬ 
ernment  begins  where  that  of  the  respective  States 
ends.  Who  will  claim  that  the  National  Govern¬ 
ment  has  a  right  to  construct  railroads  ?  The  mode 
in  which  the  business  is  necessarily  carried  on 
upon  these  roads  furnishes  an  abundant  answer 
to  this  question.  From  their  very  nature  they 
are  exclusive.  He  who  wants  to  travel,  cannot 
put  his  own  car  on  to  the  track.  He  must  sub¬ 
mit  himself  to  the  dictation  of  others.  He  must 
enter  cars  prepared  for  the  road.  Fast  or  slow, 
the  engineer  controls  the  movement,  and  the  mur¬ 
murs  or  plaudits  of  the  passenger,  alike  unheard, 
neither  increase  nor  diminish  the  speed.  How 
unlike  the  navigation  of  our  rivers,  our  lakes,  or 
the  ocean  !  There,  each  master  spreads  his  own 
canvas  to  the  propitious  wind,  or  dashes  onward, 
at  pleasure,  with  his  huge  but  obedient  steamer. 
The  former  is  close  and  restricted;  the  latter  is 
free  and  national.  The  one  is  suited  to  the  minu¬ 
tiae  of  State  legislation;  the  other  to  the  broader 
field  of  national  commerce.  The  one  constitutes 
the  thoroughfares  of  individual  States;  our  great 
rivers  and  lakes  are  the  highways  of  the  nation. 
The  objects,  therefore,  to  which  these  funds  are 
devoted  lie  beyond  our  constitutional  limits.  As 
well  might  we  devote  funds  from  the  Treasury  for 
the  establishment  of  a  bank  at  Hannibal,  as  to 
send  out  a  railroad  from  that  place  through  the 
wild  lands  of  the  West. 

Is  it  said  that  these  lands  are  givfen  to  the  States, 
and  that,  inasmuch  as  the  States  have  an  undoubt¬ 
ed  right  to  construct  railroads,  therefore  the  con¬ 
stitutional  objection  is  answered?  Let  us  test  this 
question.  If  this  bill  proposed  to  make  a  general 
distribution  of  the  public  treasure  to  all  the  States 
alike,  the  project  would  evidently  be  more  just 
than  the  present;  yet  it  would  then  be  open  to  the 
strong  objection  of  collecting  money  from  the 
people,  for  distribution  among  the  people,  abating 
the  expense  of  collection  and  payment.  But  this 
proposition  is  to  give  a  large  amount  of  land  to  a 
single  State,  with  a  provision  requiring  that  State 
to  devote  the  avails  of  the  land  to  the  construction 
of  two  specified  railroads.  If  we  have  not  a  con¬ 
stitutional  right  to  construct  railroads,  have  we  a 
right  to  make  a  donation  of  funds  for  the  con¬ 
struction  of  railroads  ?  If  we  have  no  right  to 
accomplish  an  object  directlxj,  have  we  a  right  to 
accomplish  the  same  object  indirectly  ?  If  there 
be  any  reason  which  will  enable  us  to  bring  about 
this  result,  it  lies  beyond  discovery  by  mortal 
vision. 

These  public  lands  are  held  by  the  United  States 
in  a  fiduciary  capacity.  In  the  sale  and  disposi¬ 
tion  of  them,  Congress  acts  as  a  trustee.  What 
right  has  a  trustee  to  give  away  the  trust  estate? 
Have  we  any  more  authority  to  give  away  the 
public  lands  than  we  have  to  put  our  hands  into 
the  Treasury  and  make  a  donation  in  specie?  If 
these  lands  are  taken  from  the  market  and  given 
away,  that  source  of  revenue  is  cut  off.  Increased 
taxation,  by  way  of  import  duties  or  otherwise, 
is  necessarily  resorted  to  in  order  to  supply  the 
deficiency  in  the  public  revenue  thus  created.  In¬ 
stead,  therefore,  of  selling  the  nation’s  lands  to 
pay  the  nation’s  debts,  we  give  away  these  lands 
and  tax  the  people  to  pay  these  debts  !  Let  the  ! 
argument  be  put  in  this  form,  and  will  any  one 
rise  in  his  place  and  maintain  the  right  in  Congress 
to  make  any  such  donation  ?  The  very  nature  of 


j  the  trust  is  at  war  with  this  gross  assumption  of 
|  power. 

But,  sir,  I  propose  to  examine  this  question  of 
'  power  further.  How,  and  under  what  circum- 
j  stances,  did  the  General  Government  obtain  title 
to  the  public  lands  east  of  the  Mississippi  river? 
W ere  the  grants  by  the  States  to  the  General  Gov¬ 
ernment  absolute  or  limited  ?  Let  it  be  remem¬ 
bered  that  most  of  the  original  grants  from  the 
British  Crown  to  the  American  colonies,  covered 
lands  from  the  sea-board  westwardly  to  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi  river,  and  some  purported  to  extend  to  the 
Pacific  ocean.  These  grants  were  made  long  be¬ 
fore  the  country  was  fully  explored.  Little  attention 
was  paid  to  their  northern  or  southern  boundary, 
and  hence  these  grants  lapped  upon  each  other. 
Disputes  began  to  arise  between  the  States  as  to 
the  rightful  extent  of  these  grants,  until  the  Amer¬ 
ican  Revolution,  quieting  these  disputes,  gave  rise 
to  a  more  momentous  question.  To  whom  did 
these  unappropriated  lands  rightly  belong  ?  The 
blood  and  treasure  of  all  the  States  were  freely 
poured  out  in  that  great  struggle  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole  nation.  The  war  was  yet  raging, 
and  the  national  debt  rapidly  increasing.  How 
shall  this  debt  be  paid  ?  Shall  the  patriotic  States 
of  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  Rhode 
Island,  whose  grants  were  limited,  bear  the  severe 
burdens  of  the  war,  and  then  quietly  sit  down  and 
pay  their  proportionate  share  of  the  expense,  leav¬ 
ing  the  other  States  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  vast 
region  of  unappropriated  lands  lying  between  the 
settlements  on  the  sea-board  and  the  Mississippi? 
or  shall  these  lands  be  regarded  as  a  national  fund, 
devoted  to  war  expenses  and  the  common  benefit 
of  all  the  States?  These  were  questions,  at  that 
important  juncture,  worthy  the  thoughts  of  states¬ 
men.  The  subject  was  one  of  vital  interest,  and 
was  treated  with  the  grave  deliberation  suited  to  its 
importance. 

Some  of  the  States  refused  to  sign  the  Articles 
of  Confederation  until  an  equitable  adjustment  of 
this  matter  should  be  made.  In  1779,  Congress 
passed  a  resolution  soliciting  the  then  land  States 
not  to  dispose  of  the  unappropriated  lands  during 
the  continuance  of  the  war.  Maryland,  Delaware, 
and  New  Jersey  evinced  a  strong  desire  that  jus¬ 
tice  to  them  should  be  done,  and  ardently  pressed 
Congress  for  a  settlement  of  this  question.  Vir¬ 
ginia,  unwilling  to  l’esign  her  claims  to  any  of  the 
unappropriated  lands,  remonstrated  against  any 
interference  with  her  possessions  on  the  part  of 
the  General  Government.  This  subject  had  ap¬ 
proached  a  dangerous  crisis,  when  the  Legislature 
of  the  State  of  New  York  in  1780  patriotically 
came  to  the  rescue,  and  passed  an  act  author¬ 
izing  their  delegates  in  Congress  to  limit  the  west¬ 
ern  line  of  that  State,  and  cede  the  lands  west  of 
such  line  to  the  United  States,  for  the  benefit  of 
such  States  as  should  become  members  of  theFed- 
l  eral  Alliance.  Before  such  cession  was  actually 
;  made,  Congress  passed  a  resolution  inviting  the 
S  other  States  to  follow  the  example  set  by  New 
York;  and  in  that  resolution  expressly  pledged  the 
faith  of  the  nation  to  dispose  of  the  lands  which 
:  should  be  ceded  to  the  General  Government  by 
!  the  respective  States,  for  the  common  benefit  of  the 
United  States.  Whereupon  the  State  of  New  York, 
in  1781,  three  years  in  advance  of  any  other  State, 
j  ceded  her  unappropriated  lands  west  of  her  present 
State  line  to  the  United  States,  pursuant  to  the 
resolution  of  Congress.  The  other  land  States 
followed  the  example  of  New  York,  and,  relying 


3 


upon  the  resolution  of  Congress,  ceded  their  unap- 

fjropriated  lands  to  the  United  States  in  the  fol- 
owing  order:  Virginia  in  part  in  1784,  and  finally 
in  1788;  Massachusetts  in  1785;  Connecticut  in 
part  in  1786,  and  finally  in  1800;  South  Carolina 
in  1787;  North  Carolina  in  1790;  and  Georgia 
in  1802. 

What  were  the  purport  and  effect  of  this  reso¬ 
lution  of  Congress  pledging  the  faith  of  the  nation 
to  dispose  of  these  lands  for  the  common  benefit 
of  all  the  States,  and  the  cession  of  land  by  the 
States  pursuant  thereto?  These  transactions  to-  | 
gether  constitute  a  compact  obligatory  upon  the 
parties  now  in  full  force,  and  binding  as  the  Con-  ; 
stitution  itself.  What  legal  or  moral  right  have 
we  to  break  that  compact?  Where  do  gentlemen 
find  the  power  authorizing  Congress  to  trample 
this  solemn  agreement  under  our  feet,  and  instead 
of  disposing  of  these  lands  for  the  common  benefit 
of  all — instead  of  collecting  their  avails  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  Government,  and  the  payment  of  the 
national  debt — give  them  away  under  the  name  of 
States  to  railroad  corporations  and  voracious  spec¬ 
ulators?  What  right  has  Congress  under  this 
compact  to  give  them  away  for  any  purpose? 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides 
that — 

“  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of,  and  make 
all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting,  the  territory  or 
other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States;  and  nothing 
in  this  Constitution  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  prejudice  any 
claim  of  the  United  States  or  of  any  particular  State.” 

This  is  the  only  clause  in  that  instrument  relat¬ 
ing  to  the  public  lands.  What  do  the  words  con¬ 
ferring  upon  Congress  the  power  to  dispose  of, 
and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respect¬ 
ing,  the  territory  or  other  property  of  the  United 
States,  mean,  when  taken  ^"connection  with  the 
clause  prohibiting  Congress  from  prejudicing  any 
claims  of  the  United  States  or  of  any  particular  State 
therein  ?  Can  it  in  truth  be  said,  that  any  one  of 
the  States  has  no  interest  in  the  public  lands  ?  If 
each  of  the  States  has  an  interest  in  them,  what 
power,  what  right  has  Congress  to  prejudice  such 
claim  by  giving  them  away,  either  to  States,  indi¬ 
viduals,  or  corporations?  Is  it  not  also  obvious 
that  any  such  donation  works  a  prejudice  to  the 
claims  of  the  United  States  in  the  public  domain  ? 
These  questions  admit  of  but  one  answer.  The 
Constitution  itself,  therefore,  not  only  fortifies  the 
position  I  have  taken  in  respect  to  the  public  lands 
east  of  the  Mississippi  river,  but  secures  to  the 
respective  States  their  interest  in  the  public  do¬ 
main  everywhere  throughout  the  Union. 

In  the  ordinary  transactions  of  business,  where 
several  persons  purchase  a  tract  of  land,  and  all 
assist  in  paying  for  it,  each  has  an  equitable  right 
to  his  share;  though  the  legal  title  may  be  held  by 
one  of  their  number  or  by  a  third  person.  In 
1803  we  purchased  of  the  French  Republic  the  Ter¬ 
ritory  of  Louisiana  for  upwards  of  eleven  million 
and  a  half  of  dollars,  and  stipulated  to  release  that 
Republic  from  all  liability  for  spoliations  upon 
our  commerce  prior  to  1800,  amounting  to  about  j 
as  much  more.  In  1819,  we  purchased  Florida  ; 
from  Spain,  for  $5,000,000.  Immense  sums  of' 
money  have  been  yearly  paid  to  the  various  In-  i 
dian  tribes  for  the  extinguishment  of  their  titles  j 
even  to  a  small  part  of  the  public  domain.  For  j 
the  extinguishment  of  Indian  titles  to  116,349,899 
acres  of  land  between  the  4th  of  March,  1829,  and 
the  4th  of  December,  1838,  we  paid  and  agreed  to 
pay  to  Indian  tribes,  the  sum  of  $72,562,05 6. 


Larger  sums  still  will  be  required  from  year  to 
year  for  the  purchase  of  other  Indian  titles.  The 
Indian  appropriation  bill,  for  years,  has  exceeded 
a  million  of  dollars  annually.  At  the  present  time, 
the  amount  of  annuities  and  interest  payable  to 
Indian  tribes  is  $822,215.  Of  this  sum  $150,310 
is  a  perpetual  annuity,  equal  in  value  to  two  and 
a  half  millions  of  dollars.  We  owe  various  tribes 
of  Indians,  upon  which  we  pay  annual  interest, 
the  sum  of  $5,271,600.  If  we  take  into  consider¬ 
ation  the  present  value  of  all  annuities  due  these 
tribes,  together  with  the  amount  of  funds  belong¬ 
ing  to  them  and  now  in  the  hands  of  the  General 
Government,  this  branch  of  our  national  debt 
alone  cannot  be  less  than  twelve  millions  of  dol¬ 
lars. 

The  survey  of  our  public  lands  for  some  years 
past  has  cost  the  Government  from  $200,000  to 
$300,000  a  year.  We  have  paid  Mexico  for  the 
acquisition  of  territory  $15,000,000,  and  relin¬ 
quished  claims  upon  that  Republic  amounting  to 
about  $6,000,000  more.  We  agreed  to  pay 
Texas  $10,000,000  for  her  claim  upon  New  Mex¬ 
ico. 

The  stipulations  entered  into  between  the  United 
States  and  Georgia,  upon  the  cession  of  the  unap¬ 
propriated  lands  of  that  State  to  the  General  Gov¬ 
ernment,  resulted  in  the  Florida  war,  and  the  con¬ 
sequent  removal  of  the  Indians  from  that  section 
of  the  Union  west  of  the  Mississippi.  The  war 
with  Mexico  resulted  in  a  war  for  the  acquisition 
of  territory.  In  the  treaty  of  peace  the  United 
States  agreed  to  protect  that  Republic  from  dep¬ 
redations  by  Indians  residing  within  the  United 
States.  What  these  wars  have  cost,  and  what 
amount  will  be  required  to  keep  up  an  army  upon 
our  southwestern  frontier  in  order  to  comply  with 
the  terms  of  the  treaty  with  Mexico,  it  is  not  easy 
to  determine. 

These  immense  sums  have  been  expended  from 
the  public  Treasury,  substantially  for  the  acquisi¬ 
tion  of  public  lands.  These  moneys  have  been, 
in  part,  paid  out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  nation, 
and  the  residue  must  also  be  drawn  from  the  same 
Treasury. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Tennessee.  I  wish  to  ask 
the  gentleman  from  New  York  a  single  question. 
If  the  amount  we  have  paid  for  the  acquisition  of 
Florida,  Louisiana,  California,  and  all  the  other 
acquired  territory,  is  chargeable  to  the  public 
account?  I  to  some  extent  answer  the  question 
by  asking  another:  If  there  were  not  a  foot  of 
vacant  unoccupied  land,  would  not  the  United 
States  have  been  justified  in  paying  the  amount 
which  has  been  paid  for  the  extension  of  our 
jurisdiction  ? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  The  last  question  put  by  my 
honorable  friend  from  Tennessee,  is  not  quite  per¬ 
tinent  to  the  matter  under  discussion;  for,  in  one 
sense,  we  may  have  been  remunerated  for  these 
expenditures  in  the  glory  of  our  arms  and  the 
fame  of  our  achievements.  When  we  have  pur¬ 
chased  territory,  and  paid  a  vast  sum  of  money 
for  it,  even  though  our  jurisdiction  is  thereby  en¬ 
larged  and  benefits  result  to  the  nation  from  such 
extended  jurisdiction,  yet  this  cannot  authorize 
Congress  to  give  away  such  territory,  and  leave 
the  people  to  pay  the  stipulated  price.  I  therefore 
answer,  that  the  price  paid  for  these  acquisitions 
is  chargeable  to  public  account. 

Sir,  this  Government  has  been  engaged  in  the 
survey  and  sale  of  our  unappropriated  lands  about 
seventy  years.  The  whole  sales,  up  to  the  close  of 


4 


the  last  fisca  iyear,  amount  only  to  100,560,790. 
The  amount  received  upon  sales  does  not  half 
equal  the  amount  we  have  paid  for  the  public  lands. 
The  question,  then,  arises,  whether  it  would  be 
discreet,  even  if  we  had  the  power,  to  give  away 
these  lands  until  after  the  sum  which  has  been 
paid  out  shall  have  been  realized  from  the  sales  of 
them  ?  If  a  surplus  can  be  saved,  to  whom  should 
that  surplus  go  ?  Obviously,  it  should  be  placed  in 
the  Treasury  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  nation. 

Our  registered  public  debt  is  now  $62,000,000. 
Add  to  this  the  unregistered  debt  of  $10,000,000 
due  Texas,  and  our  liabilities  of  $12,000,000  to 
the  Indian  tribes,  and  we  see  that  the  payment  of 
$84,000,000  is  to  be  provided  for.  How  is  this 
vast  debt  to  be  paid  ?  Throw  away  the  public 
lands,  and  the  sober  realities  of  taxation,  drawn 
from  the  sweat  of  the  brow,  will  give  a  reluctant 
but  admonitory  answer  to  this  question. 

If,  then ,  there  were  no  compact  and  no  constitu¬ 
tional  provision  against  these  donations,  the  plainest 
principles  of  common  justice  should  be  an  adequate 
barrier  against  them.  I  am  aware  that  the  plea  for 
infractions  upon  constitutional  rights  is  always  put 
forth  in  a  plausible  form;  and  ardent  appeals  to 
interest  are  made,  and  subtle  combinations  entered 
into,  until  a  vast  force  is  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
object  in  view.  Why  is  Prance  now  governed  by 
the  arbitrary  will  of  a  tyrant?  I  answer,  the  Le¬ 
gislature  of  Republican  Prance  led  the  way.  That 
body  first  set  the  Constitution  at  defiance.  Against 
the  letter  and  spirit  of  that  instrument,  the  French 
Chamber  disfranchised  a  large  portion  of  the  con¬ 
stitutional  voters,  and  invaded  the  liberty  of  the 
Press.  They  squandered  the  public  treasure  in 
balls  and  banquets.  They  taught  the  people  to  live 
upon  the  Government.  They  crushed  the  rising 
spirit  of  liberty  in  Rome,  and  Frenchmen  did  not 
complain.  The  Constitution  was  overruled  by 
mere  legislative  enactments,  broken  by  legislative 
usurpation.  What  is  liberty  when  the  guarantees 
of  the  constitution  are  gone?  A  mirror,  to  see  a 
tyrant’s  face  in. 

Infringements  upon  the  Constitution  always 
produce  disastrous  effects.  Let  any  State  in  the 
Union  transcend  its  constitutional  powers,  and 
embark  upon  a  scheme  of  gigantic  expenditure, 
and  though  such  expenditure  may  seem  to  be  for  a 
praiseworthy  object,  yet  the  incipient  wrong 
wakes  into  life  a  horde  of  ravenous  expectants  of 
public  plunder.  The  very  fact  that  the  organic 
law  has  been  broken,  to  open  the  way  for  such 
unauthorized  expenditure,  is  itselfan  invitation  for 
the  artful  and  designing  to  set  their  wits  in  motion 
for  the  most  adroit  mode  of  robbing  the  public 
Treasury.  Donations  of  such  vast  amounts  of 
public  lands  to  the  State  x>r  the  construction  of 
railroads,  is  liable  to  the  same  fraudulent  mode  of 
expenditure.  These  lands  become  a  fund  attract¬ 
ive  to  speculators,  who  throng  the  halls  of  State 
Legislatures.  At  their  instance,  corporations  are 
created,  the  lands  transferred, the  prices  raised,  the 
roads  surveyed,  and  cities  and  villages  in  abun¬ 
dance  emblazoned  upon  the  map.  Scrip  for  cor¬ 
ner  lots,  and  gardens,  and  farms,  and  mill-sites, 
are  blown  into  every  market.  The  adroit  specu¬ 
lator  knows  well  who  to  choose  for  customers. 
He  does  not  invite  the  attention  of  men  who  un¬ 
derstand  his  appliances.  It  is  the  unsuspecting 
and  the  credulous  whom  he  marks  for  victims. 
Thus,  if  these  measures  shall  pass,  the  speculating 
mania  of  J‘835  and  1636  will  be  reenacted,  with  the 
ad  vantage  ofnew  scenery  and  fresh  embellishments. 


!  The  friends  of  this  system  propose  to  take  the 
lands  in  alternate  sections,  and  confine  the  range 
within  fifteen  miles  of  the  road.  They  would  then 
require  the  sections  retained  by  the  General  Gov¬ 
ernment  to  be  sold  for  not  less  than  $2  50  per  acre, 
while  they  propose  to  allow  the  States  to  which 
the  sections  shall  be  granted  to  sell  the  lands  thus 
granted  for  such  price  as  they  may  choose.  Thus 
it  is  claimed  that  because  the  price  on  the  half  re¬ 
served  is  to  be  doubled,  the  half  given  away  is  no 
donation.  If  this  proposition  be  sound,  as  a  gen¬ 
eral  rule,  why  do  not  the  States,  so  clamorous  for 
j  railroads,  so  anxious  to  force  Congress  into  this 
!  new  way  of  making  money,  themselves  purchase 
all  the  lands  on  each  side  of  the  proposed  railroads 
at  the  small  sum  of  $1  25  per  acre,  and  thus  re¬ 
lieve  the  General  Government  from  the  specula¬ 
tion  ?  I  more  approve  of  the  caution  which  gov¬ 
erns  the  acts  of  these  States  than  their  advice  by 
which  they  would  have  the  legislation  of  Congress 
directed.  Some  acquaintance  with  the  sales  of 
the  public  lands  during  the  last  twenty  years,  and 
the  amounts  of  land  purchased  remaining  unoc¬ 
cupied  to  this  day  will  show  how  illusory  this 
position  is.  Under  the  reign  of  speculation  in 
1835  and  1836,  the  Government  sold  the  enormous 
amount  of  32,639,343  acres  of  land,  for  the  sum 
of  upwards  of  forty’millions  of  dollars.  The  best 
judges  upon  this  subject  are  of  the  opinion  that 
not  one  half  of  this  land  sold  during  those  years 
has  yet  gone  into  the  hands  of  actual  occupants. 
Why  is  this  ?  The  soil  is  good,  and  the  land  well 
located,  for  it  was  purchased  upon  actual  examina¬ 
tion  by  men  of  experience.  But,  sir,  the  amount 
of  lands  sold  during  those  years  was  enough  to 
supply  the  whole  tide  of  emigration  westward  for 
twenty-five  years.  Many  who  have  taken  up  their 
abode  in  the  new  country  chose  to  purchase  lands 
from  the  General  Government,  and  hence  a  large 
share  of  the  lands  bought  upon  speculation  re¬ 
mains  unoccupied  to  this  day.  Gentlemen  from 
the  new  States  complain  that  large  amounts  of 
land  have  been  surveyed  and  in  market  for  a  long 
time,  and  yet  remain  unsold.  They  think  that  a 
number  of  railroads  in  each  of  the  new  States, 
and  in  the  Territories,  would  induce  actual  set¬ 
tlers  to  purchase  these  lands.  This  reasoning  is 
fallacious.  No  such  extraordinary  effects  can  be 
i  expected.  The  moment  these  lands  are  putin  the 
|  market,  if  they  are  to  be  so  desirable  as  some  sup- 
I  pose,  they  will  be  seized  by  the  speculators  before 
i  the  real  settler  from  the  Eastern  States  has  time  to 
I  think  of  emigration. 

Since  1820,  the  Government  has  sold  the  public 
lands,  according  to  the  judgment  of  those  best  ac- 
;  quainted  with  the  subject,  at  a  price  not  much,  if 
j  any,  above  what  they  cost  us,  including  the  ex- 
!  penses  of  survey  and  sale.  Efforts  have  been  made 
j  from  time  to  time  to  reduce  the  price  below  $1  25 
!  an  acre,  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  emigration 
[  to  the  new  States.  But  now,  a  policy  directly 
the  opposite  is  pressed  upon  our  consideration. 
The  advocates  of  these  railroad  projects  would 
raise  the  price,  and  thus  place  the  lands  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  emigrant  possessed  of  small  pecu¬ 
niary  means.  This  policy  is  also  advocated  with 
a  view  of  increasing  emigration  to  the  new  States. 
Antagonistic  as  these  measures  are  to  each  other, 
Representatives  from  the  same  States  have,  by 
j  turns,  supported  both.  It  is  also  supposed  that  a 
j  large  majority  of  the  advocates  of  these  railroad 
|  schemes,  are  in  favor  of  giving  away  the  public 
j  lands  to  actual  settlers.  From  the  want  of  unity 


5 


in  these  projects,  we  are  admonished  to  examine 
them  all  with  some  care.  It  has  been  said  in  the 
course  of  debate,  by  a  member  of  the  Committee 
on  Public  Lands,  that  donations  of  public  land  for 
over  twenty  railroads  are  reported,  and  to  be  re¬ 
ported,  and  the  construction  of  these  roads  recom¬ 
mended  by  that  committee  at  this  session.  It  is 
plainly  seen,  that  from  combination  of  interest,  if 
one  passes,  all  will.  This  is  the  new  system  for 
increasing  the  sale  and  disposition  of  the  public 
lands,  and  promoting  emigration  from  the  old 
States  to  the  new.  Suppose  you  could  manage 
one  or  two  roads  upon  choice  localities  to  advan¬ 
tage,  what  will  you  do  with  the  great  number  of 
them  contemplated  in  this  scheme?  Where  are 
the  settlers  to  come  from,  sufficient  to  people  such 
a  vast  amount  of  territory  within  the  time  indi¬ 
cated  by  the  haste  in  which  these  measures  are 
pressed  upon  us?  A  few  hundred  thousand  set¬ 
tlers  a  year  will  not  answrer  the  purpose;  nothing 
short  of  emigration  by  kingdoms,  in  a  body,  can 
satisfy  such  huge  desires.  Sir,  depend  upon  it, 
emigration  will  not  be  materially  increased  by  the 
means  proposed.  If  lands  were  not  raised  in  price, 
emigrants  might  be  concentrated  for  a  time  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  proposed  roads,  instead  of  taking 
up  their  abode  elsewhere.  This  is  concentration 
in  a  particular  locality,  not  an  increase  of  popula¬ 
tion  in  the  new  States. 

In  the  course  of  debate,  allusion  has  been  made 
to  grants  of  alternate  sections  of  land  by  Con¬ 
gress,  in  1827,  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  to  aid  in 
the  construction  of  a  canal  connecting  the  waters 
of  the  Illinois  river  with  Lake  Michigan;  and, 
also,  to  another  grant,  during  the  same  session  of 
Congress,  of  like  alternate  sections  to  the  State  of 
Indiana,  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  the  Wabash 
and  Erie  canal.  The  acts  making  these  donations 
required  the  price  of  the  sections  reserved  to  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Government  to  be  raised  from  $1  25  to  $2  50 
per  acre.  It  was,  doubtless,  an  object  of  importance 
to  connect  the  waters  of  the  Mississippi,  through 
the  medium  of  lakes  and  canals,  with  the  waters 
of  the  Hudson  river.  Perhaps  so  strong  an  appeal 
could  not  have  been  made  for  any  other  similar 
donation.  The  New  York  canals,  between  the 
lakes  and  the  Hudson  river,  were  then  in  success¬ 
ful  operation;  and,  it  was  inquired,  why  not  con¬ 
struct  canals  in  the  new  States,  and  send  the  prod¬ 
ucts  of  the  Mississippi  valley  to  the  commercial 
metropolis  of  the  nation?  The  supposed  benefits 
of  these  projects  by  no  means  equaled  the  injury 
arising  from  these  donations.  The  grants  neither 
blessed  the  giver  nor  receiver.  They  stimulated 
the  States  of  Indiana  and  Illinois  to  embark  upon 
a  system  of  wild  and  extravagant  expenditure. 
They  issued  stocks  in  profusion,  and  the  markets  j 
were  filled  with  them  to  overflowing.  No  ad¬ 
equate  provision  was  made  even  for  the  payment 
of  the  interest,  much  less  the  principal.  Conse¬ 
quences  quite  natural  followed.  These  two  fa¬ 
vorite  States,  unsurpassed  by  any  in  the  Union 
for  beauty  and  fertility,  overwhelmed  by  pressing 
liabilities,  were  forced  to  the  threshold  of  repudia¬ 
tion.  Their  stocks  were  hawked  in  the  market¬ 
place;  their  credit  was  lost,  and  their  public  works 
stopped.  These  States  turned  over  their  lands  to 
corporations  created  for  the  purpose.  The  price 
of  the  lands  was  fixed  at  five  dollars  an  acre;  and 
although  a  quarter  of  a  century  has  gone  by  since 
the  donations  were  made,  more  than  half  of  them 
remain  unsold  to  this  day.  These  vast  debts,  ere-  | 
ated  by  the  States  of  Indiana  and  Illinois,  have  j] 


prevented  settlers  from  going  there.  The  hardy 
pioneer  does  not  relish  heavy  taxation.  He  goes 
where  lands  are  good  and  cheap,  and  expenses 
light.  Hence,  the  sales  of  land  belonging  to  the 
General  Government  in  these  two  States,  have, 
without  doubt,  been  much  retarded. 

Our  experience  upon  this  subject  does  not  stop 
here.  In  1838,  Congress  made  a  donation  of  al¬ 
ternate  sections  of  land  to  the  Territory  of  Wis¬ 
consin,  for  the  construction  of  the  Milwaukie  and 
Rock  River  canal.  This  grant,  like  those  to  In¬ 
diana  and  Illinois,  embraced  the  alternate  sections 
for  the  distance  of  five  sections  on  each  side  of  the 
canal.  In  like  manner,  also,  the  price  of  the  sec¬ 
tions  reserved  to  the  United  States  was  raised  from 
$1  25  to  $2  50  an  acre.  These  lands  were  not 
surpassed  in  fertility,  climate,  or  convenience  of 
location,  by  any  in  the  Union.  A  corporation  was 
created  to  take  the  lands  and  construct  the  canal. 
This  canal  was  to  be  some  sixty  or  seventy  miles 
long.  The  lands  are  gone,  of  course,  but  where 
is  the  canal  ?  A  dike,  now  used  for  mill  purposes, 
a  mile  and  a  half  in  length,  tells  the  whole  tale  of 
this  munificent  donation.  Not  discouraged  at  this 
disastrous  result,  in  1846,  Congress  granted  to  the 
same  Territory  like  alternate  sections  of  land,  for 
the  improvement  of  the  Fox  and  Wisconsin  rivers. 
In  1848,  Congress,  aware  that  the  whole  project 
resulted  in  a  failure,  not  only  reduced  the  price  of 
the  alternate  sections  of  the  lands  reserved  to  the 
Genera!  Government  in  both  grants  to  Wisconsin 
back  to  $1  25  an  acre,  but  paid  to  those  who  had 
purchased  these  reserved  sections  at  double  that 
sum  the  excess  above  $1  25  an  acre.  Let  the 
Governor  of  Wisconsin,  in  his  annual  message  to 
the  Legislature  of  that  State  in  January  last,  be 
heard  upon  this  subject.  He  is  on  the  ground,  an 
eye  witness  to  the  effects  of  this  system  of  unau¬ 
thorized  prodigality.  I  give  his  language: 

“  These  large  grants  of  the  public  lands  to  (he  State,  in 
trust  for  the  benefit  of  specific  works  of  internal  improve¬ 
ment,  under  the  supervision  of  private  incorporated  com¬ 
panies,  will  retard  the  settlement  of  the  State,  by  engross¬ 
ing  the  most  valuable  portions  of  the  vacant  lands,  and  in 
every  instance,  will  probably  have  the  effect  to  keep  them 
out  of  the  immediate  market,  as  well  as  to  increase  the 
original  cost  to  the  settler  when  offered  for  sale.  If  granted, 
as  is  usual  in  such  cases,  in  alternate  sections,  the  practice 
has  been,  and  will  probably  continue  to  be,  to  increase  the 
price  of  Government  lands  so  alternately  reserved,  thus 
making  the  land,  both  granted  and  reserved,  a  profitless  bar¬ 
gain  to  the  capitalist,  as  well  as  placing  them  beyond  the 
reach  of  a  large  proportion  of  emigrant  settlers,  who  would 
otherwise  become  resident  producers  in  the  State.  The 
consequence  would  be,  they  would  avoid  Wisconsin  and 
seek  more  favorable  localities  in  other  States  and  Terri¬ 
tories,  where  vacant  lands  could  be  procured  at  the  usual 
Government  price,  if  a  giant,  be  made  for  the  benefit  of 
only  one  certain  work,  or  a  particular  company,  and  no 
other  should  be  allowed,  it  would  be  objectionable,  as  con¬ 
ferring  a  special  and  exclusive  benefit  upon  a  particular  sec¬ 
tion  of  the  State,  out  of  a  general  and  common  fund  that 
belongs  to  all  portions  and  sections  of  the  State  alike.  If 
one  grant  should  become  a  precedent,  reason  for  allowing 
others,  and  grants  should  continue  to  be  made  as  often  as 
any  work  or  improvement  could  be  demonstrated  to  be  of 
utility  and  importance  to  any  section  of  the  country,  in  a 
very  short  time  all  the  public  lands  in  the  State  would  be 
absorbed  and  engrossed  by  numberless  projected  internal 
improvements,  each  under  the  management  of  special  and 
private  companies,  and  all  requiring  the  supervision  of  the 
State  government.  The  companies  having  charge  of  these 
various  works,  would  or  might  consider  it  for  their  interest 
to  make  such  a  high  appraisement  of  these  grants  as  would 
necessarily  keep  them  a  long  time  out  of  market,  and  pre¬ 
vent  their  occupancy  and  settlement.  In  Hie  mean  time, 
in  order  to  obtain  rfhe  requisite  means  to  commence  and 
carry  on  these  works,  they  might  see  fit  to  issue  bonds, 
scrip,  or  other  evidence  of  debt,  making  these  lands  the 
basis  of  their  credit  and  security,  and  by  their  sale  and  ne¬ 
gotiation  in  a  foreign  market,  have  the  effect  to  place  these 


6 


lands,  in  a  measure,  under  the  control  of  non-resident  money 
speculators.” 

Mr.  EASTMAN.  Does  the  gentleman  from 
New  York  intend  to  say  that  the  sentiment  ex¬ 
pressed  in  the  extract  just  now  read  from  the 
message  of  the  Governor  of  Wisconsin  reflects  the 
public  sentiment  of  Wiscdnsin  on  this  subject? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  These  appear  to  be  the  senti¬ 
ments  of  Governor  Farewell,  elected  to  that  office 
by  the  people  of  Wisconsin.  This  is  the  best  evi¬ 
dence  we  can  have  of  the  sentiments  of  the  people 
of  that  State  on  this  subject.  The  facts  which  I 
have  given,  also  fully  support  the  opinion  of  the 
chief  magistrate  of  that  State. 

Thus,  sir,  theory  and  experience  unite  in  placing 
the  stamp  of  condemnation  upon  this  system.  If 
it  were  authorized  by  the  Constitution,  or  by  the 
nature  of  the  trust  which  the  General  Government 
holds  in  the  public  domain,  the  project  would  nev¬ 
ertheless  be  inexpedient,  and  unworthy  of  our 
support. 

I  think  it  may  be  safely  laid  down  as  a  princi¬ 
ple,  that  no  railroad  should  be  constructed  at  pub¬ 
lic  or  private  expense,  unless  it  should  first  be 
obvious  that  the  business  which  would  be  done 
upon  it  could  not  fail  to  make  it  a  profitable 
investment.  When  the  population  is  sufficiently 
dense  to  warrant  this  result,  capitalists  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  proposed  improvement,  perhaps 
aided  by  their  friends  abroad,  will  quite  naturally 
enter  upon  the  work.  The  funds  will  then  be  ex¬ 
pended  with  care,  and  the  work  carried  on  with 
economy.  In  this  manner,  one  railroad,  or  more, 
from  the  Mississippi  river  westward,  commenced 
at  some  appropriate  place,  will  follow  the  settle¬ 
ment  of  the  country.  It  will  be  constructed  by 
the  surplus  funds  which  the  hardy  enterprise  of 
the  West  well  knows  how  to  accumulate  and  to 
manage.  The  same  enterprise  will  begin  and  ex¬ 
tend  one  railroad  or  more,  from  the  shores  of  the 
Pacific  eastward.  The  increasing  population  and 
the  growing  wealth  and  commerce  upon  both  sides 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains  will  extend  the  works 
until  it  shall  be  an  object  to  the  larger  capitalists 
to  supply  the  deficient  link  between  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  sea-boards.  This  step-by-step  progress, 
begun  and  carried  on  by  individual  enterprise, 
called  for  by  the  real  wants,  and  supported  by  the 
solid  means  of  the  country,  is  always  sound  and 
reliable.  But  make  these  vast  donations  for  the 
construction  of  an  army  of  railroads  through  the 
wilderness  everywhere,  and  you  will  have  stronger 
appeals,  and  more  of  them,  hereafter  for  donations 
to  run  the  cars  than  you  now  have  to  make  the 
roads. 

The  present  system  of  disposing  of  the  public 
domain  has  been  steadily  pursued  upwards  of 
thirty  years,  and  has  worked  well.  It  was  adopted 
after  forty  years’  experience.  Prior  to  1820,  we 
tried  high  prices  and  the  credit  system.  A  debt 
of  $22,000,000  due  this  Government,  which  the 
settlers  were  unable  to  pay,  was  the  result.  The 
lands  were  then  reduced  to  $1  25  an  acre,  and  sold 
for  ready  money.  There  they  have  stood,  breast¬ 
ing  the  attack  of  several  Administrations,  warding 
off  the  assaults  of  interested  combinations,  private 
and  corporate,  and  successfully  pleading  their  own 
cause  against  every  effort  to  make  them  common 
or  State  plunder.  The  system  has  never  been 
equaled  by  any  other  Government,  and  will  never 
be  surpassed  for  its  adaptation  to  the  wants  of  the 
settler  and  the  interest  of  the  country.  Here  the  1 
nation  has  a  vast  treasure,  which  we  can  well  rely  [ 


upon  in  war  and  in  peace.  It  has  been  guarded 
as  a  sacred  trust,  and  I  greatly  mistake  if  that 
guardianship  will  ever  be  abandoned.  I  deprecate 
the  weak  and  fallacious  notion,  promulgated  in 
certain  quarters,  for  no  good  purpose,  that  the 
new  States  are  goingto  rob  the  nation  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  domain,  and  that  this  vast  treasure  will,  in 
some  way,  be  all  squandered.  He  is  a  prophet  of 
doubtful  integrity  who  prognosticates  evil,  and 
then,  by  his  own  act,  contributes  to  the  fulfillment 
of  his  own  prophecy. 

We  must  expect  that  a  great  treasure  will  need 
some  effort  in  its  protection.  Is  it  said  that  the 
interest  of  the  new  States  will  overleap  all  bounds 
of  justice,  and  vote  all  these  lands  away  from  the 
nation  ?  Where  are  the  votes  to  come  from  ?  Ohio 
is  already  an  old  State;  and  Wisconsin,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Mississippi,  and  Alabama,  will  soon  take 
rank  in  the  same  class.  The  success  of  specula¬ 
tors,  during  the  last  Congress,  in  obtaining  several 
millions  of  acres  for  the  benefit  of  railroad  corpo¬ 
rations,  should  stand  forth  as  an  admonition 
agamst  such  encroachments. 

The  suggestion  that  the  public  lands  tend  to 
corrupt  legislation,  is  a  poor  apology  for  giving 
these  lands  away.  The  argument  amounts  to  this: 
We  fear  that  future  legislators  will  become  so 
corrupt  as  to  squander  these  lands;  therefore  let 
us  squander  them;  let  us  save  their  reputation,  by 
ruining  our  own  !  As  well  might  such  statesmen 
take  the  ground,  that  liberty  itself  is  too  great  a 
treasure  to  be  preserved  long.  It  is  assailed  on 
every  side.  Posterity  will  not  have  integrity 
enough  to  guard  it.  Sooner  or  later  it  must  go. 
We,  therefore,  being  safe  guardians  of  the  public 
interests,  will  put  an  end  to  this  troublesome  mat¬ 
ter,  by  the  establishment  of  a  despotism!  Sir,  free 
Governments  always  have  had,  and  always  will 
have,  great  treasures  to  guard  and  defend.  Per¬ 
haps,  the  freer  the  Government,  the  more  difficult 
is  the  guardianship  of  these  treasures.  Property, 
liberty,  national  honor,  are  always  open  to  assault, 
and  assailants  are  ever  at  hand .  One  palpable  legis¬ 
lative  wrong  opens  the  door  to  many  more.  Let 
us,  therefore,  stand  up  now  against  these  encroach¬ 
ments,  and  the  victory  of  right  over  wrong  will 
hereafter  be  more  sure. 

If  we  would  benefit  the  settlers,  and  keep  an 
inheritance  open  to  the  attainment  of  the  sober 
and  industrious  in  this  and  coming  generations — 
if  we  would  encourage  those  who  begin  life  with¬ 
out  property,  and  hold  out  to  them  the  strongest 
possible  inducements  to  lay  by  their  earnings  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  to  themselves  and  their 
families  a  permanent  home,  we  must  banish  from 
our  legislative  Hall  the  projects  of  donation,  grad¬ 
uation,  and  distribution  of  the  public  domain,  and 
hold  fast  to  the  system  which  experience  has  de¬ 
monstrated  to  be  the  best.  Under  this  system 
the  pioneer  moves  into  the  new  country  amid 
many  disadvantages;  but  he  is  rewarded  for  his 
perseverance  with  the  first  and  best  choice  of  a 
farm.  Each  new  settler  increases  the  value  of  the 
adjoining  lot,  and  hence  those  lots  which  at  first 
would  be  rejected  as  a  gift,  in  process  of  time  are 
better  worth  the  Government  price  than  the  best 
were  at  the  period  when  they  were  purchased. 
This  process,  itself  so  simple  and  natural,  is  the 
best  mode  of  land  graduation  which  has  ever  been 
devised.  It  does  not  reduce  the  price,  but  raises 
the  value  of  the  poorer  lands,  as  settlements  ad¬ 
vance,  up  to  and  above  the  Government  price.  It 
enables  the  pioneer  to  settle  his  children  around 


7 


him  from  the  fruits  of  their  own  earnings,  each 
content  that  the  price  is  exceeded  by  the  value  of 
the  purchase.  This  system  keeps  the  great  body 
of  the  lands  out  of  the  hands  of  speculators;  for 
no  speculator  can  purchase  a  large  body  of  land 
at  Government  prices,  keep  it  on  hand  for  years,  I 
paying  taxes  and  agency  fees,  and  make  money 
from  the  investment.  It  pledges  to  the  young 
men  of  our  country,  and  to  emigrants  from  foreign 
lands,  an  asylum  and  a  home,  as  a  reward  of  their 
frugality  and  patient  toil.  So  long  as  forty  acres 
of  good  land  can  be  purchased  for  fifty  dollars, 
and  eighty  acres  for  one  hundred  dollars,  a  farm 
is  within  the  reach  of  every  one  who  is  not  dis¬ 
abled  by  sickness  or  old  age.  Our  land  system, 
therefore,  holds  out  a  reward  to  industry  and 
frugality.  The  hardy  virtues  of  earning  and 
saving  lie  at  the  foundation  of  individual  and 
national  prosperity.  Of  what  use  is  land  to  a 
man  who  is  too  indolent  to  cultivate  it,  or  too 
prodigal  to  keep  it?  Give  it  to  him,  and  he  will 
lace  no  real  value  upon  it.  Move  him  on  it,  and 
e  will  quit  it.  Encourage  him,  and  he  neverthe¬ 
less  sinks  as  though  he  were  afflicted  with  an  in¬ 
curable  disease. 

The  donation  of  public  lands  to  aetual  settlers 
did  not  originate  in  the  United  States.  The  sys¬ 
tem,  years  ago,  was  reduced  to  practice  in  some 
of  the  Spanish  republics  upon  this  continent,  and 
also  by  the  British  Government  in  Canada.  The 
effect  produced  has  not  commended  the  continu¬ 
ance  of  the  practice  to  the  favorable  consideration 
either  of  the  philanthropist  or  statesman.  The 
project  has  the  merit  of  good  motives.  It  originated 
in  the  best  feelings  of  the  heart.  In  theory,  it  is, 
at  first  view,  somewhat  attractive;  but  when  it  is 
carefully  examined,  I  think  it  will  be  found  void 
of  any  considerable  amount  of  practical  benefit. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Tennessee  [Mr. 
Johnson]  proposes  to  reduce  this  theory  to  prac¬ 
tice  in  this  country,  by  giving  to  each  settler  one 
hundred  and  sixty  acres  of  land,  upon  condition 
of  occupancy  and  improvement  for  five  years. 
This  project  has  the  sanction  of  the  Committee  on 
Agriculture.  Surely  the  committee  does  not  pro¬ 
pose  this  as  a  measure  for  improving  the  agricul¬ 
ture  of  the  old  States;  for  we  need  there  twice  the 
population  we  now  have  to  bring  the  agricultural 
districts  up  to  an  appropriate  standard  of  improve¬ 
ment.  The  only  reason  which  has  been  or  can  be 
offered  for  this  scheme  approaching  plausibility  is, 
that  it  will  provide  a  home  for  the  poor. 

There  has  been  a  tendency  in  the  General  Gov¬ 
ernment  for  some  years  to  engross  the  business 
of  State  legislation.  If  a  State  is  so  derelict  of 
duty  as  to  neglect  to  provide  for  its  own  poor,  is 
it  the  province  of  the  General  Government  to  fur¬ 
nish  an  almoner  and  to  supply  their  wants  ?  If 
we  take  this  step,  where  shall  we  stop?  Other 
omissions  of  duty  in  State  governments,  crying 
out  more  loudly  for  redress  than  it  is  in  the  power 
of  poverty  itself  to  put  forth,  may  come  to  our 
ears,  and  shall  we  redress  these  grievances  also? 
These  principles,  carried  out,  would  leave  the 
States  with  nothing  to  do.  They  might  remain 
in  name,  with  their  boundaries  on  the  map,  show¬ 
ing  where  States  had  been;  but  without  vitality, 
their  name  would  be  a  reproach.  All  of  the  ob¬ 
jections  arising  from  a  want  of  constitutional 
power,  or  intrinsic  right  in  the  General  Govern¬ 
ment  to  make  other  partial  donations  are  also  ap¬ 
plicable  to  donations  of  this  character.  If  the  bdl 
provided  for  a  donation  of  lands  to  all  who  should 


occupy  them  for  five  years,  without  regard  to  the 
pecuniary  condition  of  the  occupant,  yet  such 
legislation  would  be  partial  and  unauthorized. 
The  whole  population  of  the  old  States  cannot 
move  away  from  their  homes.  A  gift  to  a  man 
who  cannot  take  possession  of  it  without  a  sacri¬ 
fice,  is  no  gift.  Suppose  a  corporation  owned 
land  in  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  that  the  directors 
should  pass  a  resolution  that  each  stockholder 
should  have  his  share  of  the  land  if  he  would 
move  on  to  it  and  occupy  it  for  five  years.  Some 
might  be  willing  to  go;  some  might  find  it  quite 
impossible  to  abandon  their  present  comfortable 
abodes  for  a  home  in  the  West.  Would  the  di¬ 
vision  of  the  lands,  founded  on  the  condition  of 
such  occupancy,  be  in  any  respect  just?  No  one 
can  claim  that  this  would  be  an  equitable  partition. 

If  Congress  had  the  rightful  power  to  make  do¬ 
nations  to  actual  settlers,  and  thus  hold  out  a 
bounty  to  every  man  who  will  move  from  the  old 
to  the  new  States,  few,  very  few,  would  move 
there  who  would  not  go  without  such  bounty.  It 
requires  a  much  larger  amount  of  means  to  pre¬ 
pare  for  the  change  of  abode,  and  pay  the  ex¬ 
penses  of  a  journey  to  the  West,  than  is  needed 
for  the  purchase  of  a  farm  there.  Whoever  has 
made  such  a  beginningas  will  enable  him  to  move 
to  a  distant  country,  and  have  enough  left  to  com¬ 
mence  the  cultivation  of  a  farm,  will  soon  accu¬ 
mulate  enough  more  to  purchase  a  farm.  He  will 
then  place  a  higher  value  upon  it  than  if  he  were 
indebted  to  public  charity  for  his  land.  He  will, 
by  his  previous  self-discipline,  have  prepared  him¬ 
self  to  take  care  of  his  earnings.  How  many  of 
the  extreme  poor  who  throngour  cities  and  larger 
towns,  would  ever  take  possession  of  lands  in  the 
wilderness?  Not  one  in  a  thousand.  Theirasso- 
ciations,  their  modes  of  living,  and  their  employ¬ 
ments,  alike  disincline  and  unfit  them  for  a  frontier 
life. 

The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Chand¬ 
ler]  seems  to  believe  that  the  benefits  of  this  law 
to  the  poor  who  inhabit  our  larger  cities  will  be 
incalculable.  He  represents  a  part  of  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  and  must  be  acquainted  with  the 
condition  of  the  poor  in  his  own  district.  Allow 
me  to  read  a  short  article,  published  in  the  National 
Intelligencer  of  this  city  a  month  or  two  since, 
upon  this  subject: 

“  Destitution  in  Philadelphia.— The  Philadelphia 
American  gives  an  account  of  a  visit  made  a  few  days  ago 
to  the  hovels  of  many  of  the  poor  and  destitute  of  that  city, 
who  live  in  small  unventilated  rooms,  for  which  they  are 
compelled  to  pay  ten  cents  rent  each  day.  Itis  supposed 
the  number  of  these  unfortunate  beings  is  about  five  fliou- 
sand.  Many  of  them  were  found  with  their  hands  and  feet 
frozen  for  want  of  fuel  to  keep  them  warm,  while  others 
had  even  disposed  of  mo3t  of  their  scanty  clothing  to  buy 
bread.  In  one  cellar  a  family  were  found  who  had  been 
turned  out  of  home  because  they  Were  unable  to  pay  their 
rent.  In  another  place,  a  poor  miserable  woman  and  sev¬ 
eral  children  were  found  in  a  shed,  the  children  covered  up 
in  a  heap  of  ashes  to  keep  them  warm.  Having  no  clothing 
whatever  to  cover  them,  the  mother  had  been  driven  to  this 
resort  to  keep  them  from  freezing.  The  clothes  had  been 
sold  to  buy  bread.” 

These  are  the  persons  who  need  help.  When 
will  they  move  on  to  the  wild  lands  of  the  West? 
Will  the  city  of  Philadelphia — will  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  furnish  them  the  means  to  go  with  ? 
If  the  poor  are  allowed  to  languish  without  food, 
or  raiment,  in  the  very  seat  of  opulence,  the  cof¬ 
fers  which  are  shut  fast  against  them  at  home, 
will  not  be  unlocked  for  any  such  purpose.  How 
then  shall  they  go?  and  how  live,  if  sent  penny¬ 
less  to  that  remote  land  ?  If  it  is  the  poor  whom 


8 


you  would  help,  point  out,  I  beseech  you,  some 
practicable  means  of  enabling  them  to  enjoy  the 
relief  you  would  grant. 

Mr.  CLARK.  Does  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  argue  that  the  giving  away  of  the  public 
lands  will  promote  the  suffering  and  destitution  of 
the  poor  in  the  cities? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Certainly.  If  we  give  away 
the  public  lands  and  cut  off'  this  source  of  reve¬ 
nue  to  the  General  Government,  a  higher  duty  upon 
imported  articles  is  the  inevitable  consequence.  Do 
not  the  poor  pay  a  duty,  a  tax,  upon  many  of  the 
necessaries  of  life — the  food  which  they  eat  and  the 
clothing  which  they  wear? 

Mr.  MOORE,  of  Pennsylvania.  The  gentle¬ 
man  from  New  York  refers  to  the  large  amount 
of  suffering  which  exists  in  Philadelphia,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  account  which  has  just  been  read.  I 
would  say  to  that  gentleman,  that  the  suffering  in 
our  populous  cities  arises  in  a  great  measure  from 
the  surplus  of  labor.  Now,  if  a  portion  of  in¬ 
dustrious  laborers  and  mechanics  remove  to  the 
West,  does  it  not  leave  room  for  the  employment 
of  those  persons  who  are  now  suffering? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  doubt  this  alleged  surplus 
of  labor.  The  lands  in  the  vicinity  of  Philadel¬ 
phia  would  admit  of  the  employment  of  many 
more  laborers  to  advantage — so  throughout  Penn¬ 
sylvania — so  in  New  York.  If  the  poor  cannot 
get  occupation  in  Philadelphia,  why  do  they  not 
apply  to  the  farmers  in  that  vicinity  for  employ¬ 
ment?  Besides,  if  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  not 
materially  increase  emigration  to  the  West,  then 
of  what  benefit  is  the  law  to  the  poor  in  the  cities  ? 

Mr.  CABLE.  I  understand  the  gentleman  to 
say  that  even  these  poor  people  pay  duties  to  this 
Government;  then  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  how 
he  can  deny  them  any  participation  in  the  Gov¬ 
ernment;  or,  in  other  words,  an  equal  participa¬ 
tion  in  the  public  lands,  in  which  they  have  an 
equal  interest? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  I  would  by  no  means  deny 
to  the  poor  a  full  participation  both  in  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  and  the  public  lands.  I  would  protect 
them  in  the  enjoyment  of  both.  The  poor  have 
their  voice  in  the  Government  equally  with  the 
rich,  and  the  funds  derived  from  asaleof  the  pub¬ 
lic  domain,  and  devoted  not  only  to  the  support 
of  Government,  but  to  the  common  defense  of  the 
nation,  result  alike  to  the  benefit  of  the  humble 
and  the  affluent. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  of  Tennessee.  I  would  like 
to  ask  the  gentleman  a  question.  The  bill  under 
consideration,  it  is  true,  would  not  give  immediate 
relief  to  the  suffering  condition  of  this  description 
of  population;  but  there  is  one  thing  equally  clear 
and  true,  and  that  is,  that  it  would  not  make  their 
condition  any  worse.  But  I  would  ask  the  gen¬ 
tleman  whether,  if  these  persons  had  homes  ‘and 
land  which  they  could  have  cultivated,  and  out  of 
which  they  could  have  obtained  a  support,  they 
would  have  been  in  this  wretched  condition? 

Mr.  JENKINS.  Of  course  not.  If  you  had 
the  right  t<>  devote  the  national  funds  to  procuring 
lands  for  them  in  the  vicinity  where  they  reside, 
you  might  thus  bring  relief  to  their  wants.  But. 
no  man  will  claim  that  the  national  Government, 
has  any  such  power.  This  is  the  business  of  the 
State  in  which  they  live. 

But  if  your  unauthorized  bounty,  from  the  very 


nature  of  things,  shall  flow  to  those  only  who  can 
well  take  care  of  themselves,  what  justice  is  there 
in  pleading  the  cause  of  the  needy  in  order  to  gain  a 
gratuity  for  the  prosperous?  Doubtless,  the  con¬ 
dition  of  the  poor  can  be  greatly  improved,  but 
such  improvement  must  be  commenced  and  car¬ 
ried  on  among  the  community  in  which  they  re¬ 
side.  Individual  instances  there  may  be  in  which 
a  donation  of  western  lands  would  be  of  service 
to  settlers,  who  might  not  otherwise  obtain  for 
themselves  a  homestead.  But  if  any  legislation 
upon  this  subject  is  begun  by  Congress,  it  must  be 
a  general  law,  open  alike  to  all.  If  you  give  a  farm 
to  those  only  who  are  worth  not  exceeding  $500, 
according  to  the  recommendation  of  the  commit¬ 
tee,  children  of  the  wealthy,  who  have  not  quite 
yet  come  into  possession  of  the  large  estates  of 
their  parents,  will  nevertheless  be  entitled  to  the 
gratuity,  while  the  young  man  who  has  bent  his 
neck  to  six  years  patient  toil,  and  h  id  aside  $600, 
would  be  excluded.  Would  not  such  a  provision 
open  the  door,  also,  to  the  grossest  frauds?  Many 
years  since  we  granted  pensions  to  such  revolu¬ 
tionary  soldiers  only  as  were  destitute  of  prop¬ 
erty.  What  was  the  consequence?  The  wealthy 
complained  that,  because  they  had  been  more  in¬ 
dustrious  and  frugal  than  their  companions-in- 
arms,  and  had,  by  that  means,  saved  some  prop¬ 
erty,  they  were  therefore  excluded  from  the  na¬ 
tion’s  liberality.  Some  clandestinely  put  their 
property  out  of  their  hands,  in  order  to  obtain 
pensions.  The  injustice  and  inexpediency  of  this 
partial  and  one-sided  legislation  at  length  became 
apparent,  and  Congress  soon  abrogated  the  dis¬ 
crimination,  and  bestowed  pensions  alike  upon  the 
rich  and  the  poor.  If  you  bestow  the  public  do¬ 
main  upon  the  penniless  only,  will  not  the  indus¬ 
trious  and  frugal  who,  by  the  most  rigid  economy, 
have  laid  up  a  few  hundred  dollars,  complain  of 
their  exclusion,  for  that  cause,  from  the  public 
bounty  ?  Trace  out  the  effects  of  such  a  law, 
based  upon  a  discrimination  between  those  who 
are  worth  over  $500,  and  those  who  fall  below  the 
prescribed  line,  and  consequences  the  most  mis¬ 
chievous  will  not  fail  to  be  the  result.  Far  better 
distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  at  once 
among  all  the  States,  and  let  them  be  your  almon¬ 
ers,  than  to  undertake  the  proposed  scheme. 
Much  as  I  condemn  any  squandering  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  domain,  nevertheless,  if  this  inheritance  must 
go,  I  would  put  it  in  a  shape  where  it  should  be 
sent  home  to  the  door  of  want,  and  cause  it  to  re¬ 
joice  the  heart  that  pines  in  the  darkest  cellar.  I 
would  not  mock  poverty  with  donations  of  land 
in  the  far  West  beyond  the  reach  of  the  penniless; 
but  if  we  must  turn  aside  to  do  the  business  of 
State  legislation,  I  would  throw  open  the  Treasury 
of  the  nation,  and  do  a  work  worthy  of  a  nation ’s 
bounty.  However  agreeable  to  our  feelings  such 
errands  of  mercy  would  be,  fidelity  to  the  Consti¬ 
tution  requires  us  to  avoid  this  inviting  field  of 
legislation.  Our  duties,  more  stern  hut  not  less 
important,  lie  in  another  direction.  The  guardi¬ 
anship  of  the  public  treasure  is  committed  to  our 
hands.  Our  power  is  limited.  In  time  of  war, 
other  sources  of  revenue  may  be  cut  off.  In  such 
an  event,  the  public  lands  have,  and  will  continue 
to  replenish  our  empty  coffers,  unless  we  forget 
the  duties  of  our  trust,  and  allow  them  to  pass 
from  our  control. 


Printed  at  the  Congressional  Globe  Office. 


